Where is the mass RIP thread?
I'm going to get in trouble for this! Some obscure poster's dog gets run over by a car and it's 20 pages of RIPs. 20,000 people get wiped out.... RIP!
Bluemoon goes into Meltdown
- Thread starter Logan!
- Start date
Where is the mass RIP thread?
I'm going to get in trouble for this! Some obscure poster's dog gets run over by a car and it's 20 pages of RIPs. 20,000 people get wiped out.... RIP!
Fixed. Not forgiven.
I think RIP threads are pointless. Infact everything's pointless.
In yer face, you nihilistic Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime.
You are a bit of a mug though, considering the prices.
Yeh but if a Caf poster had died, then there would have been a massive thread on it.
Bizarrely, given I know no-one in Japan personally, the first thing I thought of was Caftards who might live out there.
This seems headed towards a point I felt worth making about selfishness and how 'essential' it is to us. It doesn't impact directly on issues regarding how we might feel about different events - but it does give us a viewpoint on what may underlie the differing reactions.
As pointed out earlier, it is natural for children to be selfish - things affecting them directly are seen as far more important than anything else, their wants and needs are paramount, way above any effects upon others.
This is something that, traditionally, we have tried to teaching maturing individuals is overly self-centred - we should consider the needs of others too. It is certainly far easier to do this if we have emotional ties to the affected people. Smith recognised this 'proximity effect' and that it is easiest (and self gratifying) to restrict our obligations as far as possible and to maximise all benefit to ourselves.
All fine as far as this goes - the problem comes when/if people make the jump that the easiest path, the most self-oriented one, is the 'right' one. All that it actually entails is that this is the choice that requires the least empathy and the least altruism - the least sacrifice from complete selfishness. Tbh, warning flags should sound when Smith suggests that serious contemplation on a disaster rapidly changes into how it may materially affect the thinker's environment (and profit-making decisions) and then leads to an undisturbed slumber. It is not unreasonable to expect people to feel strongly affected by a tragedy and not brush it off so easily - it does not have to be disabling though, unless other factors come into play.
Smith identified why 'me first' capitalism would be so easy to sell - it doesn't make it the best course of action though.
Seriously dude. I think you're depressed. No joke.
You do realise you can give up all your belongings and never accept a present again and donate everything to Charity.
The choice is always there.
I think you have wrong end of the stick though, I dont see anyone saying they were not shocked at the events of last week. Nobody actually wishes these thing on anybody.
But when something is not on your front door it is a rare person who will break down in a state of grief and unable to comprehend what has happened.
But with football it is something we all follow very closely every single day and its results good and bad are only naturally going to have a more extreme instant impact on you personally.
Right -- feel free to shoot me and/or ban me (I'll cry into my foam hand! But I'll live!), I simply have to say:
MG & Seagulls, realising that the purely visceral emotional reactions are often stronger when an event happens right in front of you, or affects someone you love, is not about the inherent selfishness of man. Not unless you want to argue that the way we are hard-wired constitutes any interesting concept of selfishness.
It's not about saying 'It's human nature' and closing one's eyes to actually questionable ethical decisions, it's about understanding that there's no shame in being emotionally invested in activities like football, even if they're unimportant on a fundamental level.
Yes, if that Bluemoon poster was serious and not just using hyperbole he seems to be a bit of an insensitive tosser (to put it mildly), but following your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion would lead to any emotional investment in a football club being ethically questionable.
MG & Seagulls, realising that the purely visceral emotional reactions are often stronger when an event happens right in front of you, or affects someone you love, is not about the inherent selfishness of man. Not unless you want to argue that the way we are hard-wired constitutes any interesting concept of selfishness.
It's not about saying 'It's human nature' and closing one's eyes to actually questionable ethical decisions, it's about understanding that there's no shame in being emotionally invested in activities like football, even if they're unimportant on a fundamental level.
Yes, if that Bluemoon poster was serious and not just using hyperbole he seems to be a bit of an insensitive tosser (to put it mildly), but following your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion would lead to any emotional investment in a football club being ethically questionable.
I was roundly criticised for a comment I made in another thread which was something along the lines of "The starving people should be glad that you are selfish".
On the face of it, it does sound like a horrible thing to say but I assumed that I was speaking to intelligent people who would understand what I meant.
Imagine that you are in a situation whereby you can feed 1 million people. They rely on you to feed them. If you die, they will die (because they will have no one to supply them with food).
If you give them YOUR food, you will die tomorrow and they will die the day after.
By feeding yourself first (even though your need is not the greatest), you are being selfish but you will be here tomorrow and the day after and the day after, providing them with food.
Serving oneself does not necessarily preclude the needs of others, in some scenarios, it can help them.
On here, MG clearly wants to help these people. Can MG best help them by staying alive and providing assistance or by giving them everything MG owns to the points where MG dies? Where will their help come from if MG (and others like him/her) dies?
No matter how self-centred of selfish a person is, it is in no one's interest to be the only remaining person on earth which, in itself, is a selfish thought (being alone would suck).
Selflessness doesn't exist. At the end of the day, people are motivated by what it does for THEM. Even if it is just the warm, fuzzy glow derived from "doing something good for others" and, in some cases, getting themselves nearer to heaven.
Only on the caf would you find a thread like this encompassing football talk, laughing at bitters, silly pics and philosophy, this is why I love the place.. we're all a bunch weirded out spackers.
In my defence, I tried to get out but the damn thing kept dragging me back.
If there's any consolation, it was, apparently, a City fan who started this shit.
It's only added to the lustre of this thread imho. For me Rawk goes into meltdown couldn't be beaten but today's antics, which we were all a part of one way or another, have made this one of my favourite threads of the year so far.
you're all heartless cnuts.
Christ is this still going on!
it even brought FeedingSeagulls out.
I thought Top was in charge of editing thread titles.
anyway,,,,,
This is quite good
Bluemoon • View topic - How long have you been a City fan?
everyone's supported City since they were about 4 it seems.
This is quite good
Bluemoon • View topic - How long have you been a City fan?
everyone's supported City since they were about 4 it seems.
What truly sends shivers down the spine is that the majority seems to be born in the 60s or 70s, and be life-long season ticket holders.
Given the general quality of that forum I always assumed your average Bluemoonite was around 14 and took an interest after Shinawatra & Sven arrived. I don't think they're telling fibs either, because they're so very specific ("First game November the 6th 1971...") about it.
One can either weep for humanity or simply conclude that being a Bertie keeps your mind young. Very young.
Sample post --
A Bluemoonite (hopefully not 43 years old) said:
I don't think you can glibly dismiss people's altruism by saying that they do it to feel good. In my experience they do it spontaneously out of a sense of empathy - 'I wouldn't like to be in the shit like this, how can I help' - as you do if someone frail falls over in the street.
City are such a failure of a club that the fans of their deadliest enemies can't even be arsed to mock their fans in a thread made specifically to mock their fans.
I can't see the Newcastle thread on the biggest Sunderland forum being filled with existentialist debates instead of pictures of Alan Shearer fellating Gary Lineker while dressed as a gimp.
But I may be wrong.
I can't see the Newcastle thread on the biggest Sunderland forum being filled with existentialist debates instead of pictures of Alan Shearer fellating Gary Lineker while dressed as a gimp.
But I may be wrong.
Living in the states for 16 years now, up until this last year I met a grand total of 2 Blues. I've since encountered six City fans, all of whom claim to have supported them all their life. One of which I saw wearing a West Ham top when I first met him.
^^Proof, if it was indeed needed, that 75% of City fans are glory hunters.
Agree with this. People who don't have that sort of empathetic altruistic streak are all too quick to dismiss it in others.
On the flipside though, those without the touch of evil within them are often all too quick to dismiss its unyielding tenor and potency.
Missed this a few days ago. I know what you mean and I realise that "selflessness doesn't exist" is a bit of a sweeping statement but, in the context of the discussion, a certain person was trying a bit too hard to make out that their every waking minute is consumed with concern for the plight of others.
You see someone fall in the street and you immediate response is to go over and see if they're ok. You don't really think about it. Spontaneous empathy, as you say. Compassion might be another word.
I was referring more to the people who don't do it spontaneously but rather make it their life work. They go looking for the trouble and see how they can help. I'm just not convinced that it is entirely selfless. Please note: I am in no way having a pop at anyone here. They're good people and they're probably going straight to heaven.
They give the game away a bit by having a go at everyone else for being "less caring" than them (and so "less good people"). In other words, their do-gooding makes them feel superior to others and this, in itself, is a payoff.
Anyway, anyone got anything interesting to say about Manchester City yet?
Less 'emotionally intelligent' I think was the phrase used ad nausiam, TMRD.
Apparently, such a thing does exist. (It doesn't appear to mean quite what it was made out to mean on here though).
fecked if I'm reading that lot though. I'd rather read a Joga Bonito post.
nah I'd rather have a cystoscopy with a rusty screwdriver than read a fecking joga post, man.The key point to note is the often cited failure of emotional intelligence to account for behaviour once you have controlled for long established constructs such as personality traits.
EI has not to my knowledge been shown to be the new and separate measure that proponents of it have claimed.
You are right also that folk on here have misunderstood what it purports to measure as well.
Could a mod kindly delete the last, oh, 8 pages or so?
erm... probably about 95% of Utd fans are glory hunters if you think about it on a global scale.
Pretty much everyone outside of Manchester and in some cases Ireland are glory hunters. Some of us Irish have an excuse due to support Utd due to family who would have moved there years ago and because a lot of top Irish players have played for us throughout the clubs history
For example why do people from London support Utd when they have a whole bunch of sides to support?
As for Americans, Aussies and Scandinavians etc... I can see no other reason why they support Utd except that we have been unbelievably successful over the past 2 decades.
Not a bad thing because it has helped the club become one of the very biggest n the world. But we can really not slag another side for having glory hunters.
That would just be silly
Hello Mr Dunning and Mr Kruger
erm... probably about 95% of Utd fans are glory hunters if you think about it on a global scale.
Pretty much everyone outside of Manchester and in some cases Ireland are glory hunters. Some of us Irish have an excuse due to support Utd due to family who would have moved there years ago and because a lot of top Irish players have played for us throughout the clubs history
For example why do people from London support Utd when they have a whole bunch of sides to support?
As for Americans, Aussies and Scandinavians etc... I can see no other reason why they support Utd except that we have been unbelievably successful over the past 2 decades.
Not a bad thing because it has helped the club become one of the very biggest n the world. But we can really not slag another side for having glory hunters.
That would just be silly
I live outside Manchester, about 3,000 miles outside, although I did live about 30 odd miles away as a kid. I don't consider myself a glory hunter and have supported United for almost 50 years.
United and Liverpool have been the two most popular English clubs in Scandinavia for ages, ie since well before '93, so it's not just glory hunting. Aura hunting, maybe.
United was the first team that I ever watched when I was about 6-7 years old. It was that game where we got trashed 5-1 or 5-0 by Chelsea. I didn't really understand football then and just liked them because of their jerseys. As I kept watching, David Beckham was a big reason as to why I loved united.
You do have a point though. A lot of supporters support United because they have been so successful over the past 20 years.